Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Note: I live at 7,400 ft. above sea level where the air density is 25% thinner than at sea level. The decay rate for an acoustic piano would be noticeably slower here as the energy transfer rate from vibrating string to air sound waves would be less.

That is an interesting observation ... it would be quieter too though, yeah?! I need to practice at that elevation, though wrt to my running hobby, heh. #CLEVEL (har har!)

Note: I live at 7,400 ft. above sea level where the air density is 25% thinner than at sea level. The decay rate for an acoustic piano would be noticeably slower here as the energy transfer rate from vibrating string to air sound waves would be less.

That is an interesting observation ... it would be quieter too though, yeah?! I need to practice at that elevation, though wrt to my running hobby, heh. #CLEVEL (har har!)

To xorbe

It would be interesting to get actual sound energy measurements from identical pianos with identical note playing strength at my altitude (7,400 ft. above sea level) vs. sea level. The calculations below derive a difference of about 1 1/4 decibels between sound generated at a given power level at 7,4000 feet above sea level vs. sea level.

Sound intensity is usually measured in decibels which is a logarithmic scale. For example, sound at 90 decibels has 10 times the power as sound at 80 decibels. Sound at 100 decibels has 10 times the power as sound at 90 decibels and 100 times the power of sound at 80 decibels. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

For calculations, let’s assume that you generate 90 decibels of sound with a piano chord at sea level. If you use the Wikipedia table, this is equivalent to a “power ratio” of 1,000,000,000. To convert from a “power ratio” to decibels take the log (base 10) of the “power ratio” and then multiply by 10.

If you reduce the “power ratio” by 25% due to thinner air at higher elevations, then the “power ratio” becomes 750,000,000. This reduction in the strength of sound waves should take place for sound generated by piano strings, amplifiers, or any other source.

To convert this new “power ratio” to decibels, we again take the log (base 10) and then multiply by 10. This yields a decibel level of 88.75.

Thus perceived sound is weaker at this altitude, although it would be difficult to tell the difference with ordinary hearing – especially if you are trying to remember sounds from whenever you used to be at sea level.

To pv88 and andy

I've actually gone through all the posts on this thread which is why I'm paying attention to the decay rate. I've never played the Shubert, but I used to play Rachmaninoff's C Sharp Minor Prelude. It is one of the pieces that I will be going back to - and it runs into a sustain/decay test real quick. Basically, there is a price trade-off involved between the 650 and the CN34.

DBill - I'm also familiar with the Rach Prelude in C# minor. Although I never tested this with the casio, I'd be expecting poor results again when the C# minor chord progression starts after the octave introduction. Another example from personal experience could be the Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No 2 Mov 1 Introduction (believe this is known as the "Bell Toll"). The chords will decay far to fast on the Casio.

Bottom line here is the unacceptable "initial" decay (applies from what I've seen & heard to the AP-650 and PX-350). I've been using the AP-650 and the Schubert Impromptu to demonstrate this. There are a lot more pieces that could be demonstrated where this decay is unacceptable, however there are pieces where this decay problem would be considered not applicable, a good example (from personal experience / repertoire) to this would be the Maple Leaf Rag.

Agreed on the price trade off between the 650 and the CN34, but there is little in trade off between the AP-650 and the Roland RP301R.

I've actually gone through all the posts on this thread which is why I'm paying attention to the decay rate. I've never played the Shubert, but I used to play Rachmaninoff's C Sharp Minor Prelude. It is one of the pieces that I will be going back to - and it runs into a sustain/decay test real quick. Basically, there is a price trade-off involved between the 650 and the CN34.

I am pretty sure that most Kawai's (including the CN34) will have a better overall sustain/decay rate as compared with the Casio's. Having played both brands, the choice is clear.

It’s going to come down to “best bang for the buck”. If Kawai brings their CN34 price down to within $300 of the Casio 650, then I’ll go for the Kawai CN34. There are still several weeks to go before it’s decision time.

Here are some calculations for “fair” U. S. prices based on current UK prices. (A “fair” price is what you might expect under free-market, multiple-store competition.)

To calculate the U.S. dollar rate for 999.17 British Pounds, enter the British Pound amount in the top box and click on “Pounds to US $.http://www.dollars2pounds.com/

The conversion rate as of 1/11/2013 was 1.6130 which gives a U.S. $ amount of $1611.66.This is the “fair” U. S. $ amount for a Kawai CN34 including headphones and free delivery. (Note, the conversion rate changes frequently.)

The melody line cannot be recreated like this on the 650 no matter what techniques are adapted or what parameters are set. The important and fundamental melodic sequence being played in the middle range cuts off far too early via the tonal decay even with sustain being utilised. It's key for me (excuse the pun) as an intermediate pianist that this is retained, not released. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

I had no issues with this on the yamaha ydp-141, which is half the price of the 650 in RRP terms.

Andy.

In the comments below that video it says the piano is being played through "Pianoteq", perhaps that helps?

The Kawai CN34 may cost a little more than the Casio AP-650, although the behavior of the decay/sustain/sounds are going to be so much better with the Kawai, as I had the Casio AP-620 and the decay was simply too short.

Andy0140 has told us that the AP-650 has the same issue with the short decay (not at all acoustic-like) and the overall harmonic resonance is thin and not full enough when blending multiple notes in chords and arpeggios.

Just trying to give you sufficient warning so that you are not disappointed.

I’m still trying to get as much info as I can on the Celviano 650 vs. the Kawai CN34. I can hear a difference between the two recordings of the Shubert, but to me the Casio is not objectionable. Any plus/minus evaluation will of course vary from one person to another.

There are differences between various digitals and acoustics, but I think a lot of peoples’ preferences are based on what they get used to. Once you are used to a particular instrument, then everything else is going to sound a little strange.

I learned to play on a 1920s era Steck baby grand. Stecks were good pianos at that time. (Recent Stecks are a pile of C . . . Oops; this is a public forum so make that “organic fertilizer”.) However, it’s been 35 years since I’ve had a chance to play anything. A 35-year gap will erase any “ear preference” that you might have had. My feeling is that I would quickly adapt to any differences that might exist between various pianos. Thus my buying decision will be based on “best bang for the buck” as opposed to trying to find the “perfect piano”.

At one time I was also considering the Kawai CE220, but it’s dropped out of contention. One of the things I want to try is “Jamaican Rumba” using a marimba, but the CE220 doesn’t have a marimba.

I’m still getting price quotes as much as possible from various Kawai dealers for the CN34, but as of now I’m leaning strongly toward the 650.

One of the other things that I ran into is that Mike Martin is a very busy guy. He’s actually General Manager of Marketing, Electronic Musical Instruments at Casio, and posts on a lot of other forums besides this one. He has also worked for Yamaha and Kurzwell in the past. You can throw in setting up things for NAMM as a current project.

Finally, I do have a request for Mike. The rumors that I’ve run into are saying that Internet retailers such as Kraft Music, Musicians Friend, etc. are going to be locked out of the new Celvianos. I don’t know how much influence you might have with the high mucky mucks at Casio, but I’ve been in contact with some of the people at Kraft. They seem like good guys. If only for “free market” competition purposes, it would be nice to keep them inside the loop.

There have been some posts in pianoworld’s forums that have downplayed Casio vs. other digital piano manufacturers, but as far as I am concerned Casio (including the new Privias ) offers the “best bang for the buck”. In the past, the primary concern was the sustain time (decay rate) for Celvianos and Privas, but PianoManChuck’s video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGG1GwWGhBA is pretty convincing that the new x50 models have greatly improved that problem.

I also believe that for "bang for the buck" nothing beats Casio. Most of the detractors are comparing a $1500 with one several times the cost which frankly isn't a fair or valid comparison. For example,to most people an additional $800 or so is significant, granted, if money weren't an object there would be a Mason & Hamlin Model AA in my living room, but since it is, the AP-650 would certainly work (and being a digital, would actually FIT in my living room). Once the AP 650 is released I will be looking at one to have along with my PX-330.

Please do keep in mind that even the latest Casio currently available (AP-650) still has issues with its sounds, particularly in the short decay and lack of overall harmonic resonance (which can be heard with heavier chords) as this has already been pointed out by the OP (andy0140) in this thread.

There are other digitals at a similar price point that will give you far better performance in these areas, otherwise you will have to deal with a less than acoustic like sound with the rapid decay.

I think that almost anyone (even with a less than discerning ear) can clearly hear the deficiency of the Casio's resonance, as that is why I had to trade in my AP-620 for another digital.

I consider the Kawai EP3 to be a good comparison to the AP-620, as the piano sounds have far better decay and overall resonance. The EP3 doesn't have as many extra features as the AP-620 does, however, I was only concerned with the piano sounds and at $300 less than the Casio it was a no-brainer.

Also, be sure to read the "reviews" on each digital above as this gives a clear indication of what others think of them. Also, I gave my review of the Kawai EP3, however, I did not give the review for the Casio AP-620.

And, there is a good cross section of reviews at guitarcenter.com, as there are seven (7) worth reading, here:

Also, be sure to read the "reviews" on each digital above as this gives a clear indication of what others think of them. Also, I gave my review of the Kawai EP3, however, I did not give the review for the Casio AP-620.

And, there is a good cross section of reviews at guitarcenter.com, as there are seven (7) worth reading, here:

The 650 has 14 different “pianos” which PianoManChuck demos here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtpUCPDPUsNote that the sound engine in the Privia 350 is the same as what the 650 has. Each of these piano tones can be further refined.

The 650 has 250 different tones (electric pianos, organs, etc.) which should cover just about every musical instrument that you might want to experiment with. However, if you want to try musical tesla coils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Tesla_coil , you’re out of luck.(For an electrifying performance of “In the Hall of the Mountain King” see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LAhKkPUo_AIsn’t it “amazing” that they don’t have groupies sneaking up on the stage.)

The rapid decay time was an issue in earlier versions of Privas and Celvianos, but as far as I’m concerned the decay time is OK in the new Privas and Celvianos. (x50 series) For additional information, run a Google search using:Privia decay

Finally, I’m looking for a digital piano that fits in as a piece of furniture as well as being “the best bang for the buck”.

I will be buying a Casio Celviano 650 as soon as they are available. If for some reason I don’t like it, there’s no law that says I can’t buy something else a year or two from now.

Shouldn't you be comparing the EP3 to something like the $500 PX-130 or PX-150? Everyone knows the cabinets are overpriced.

Actually, since the EP3 costs $1,100 and the AP-620 is only $1,400 they are pretty close in price. Also, there is no question of the EP3 having nice long sustain in the samples as the overall harmonic resonance is very good. What I heard from the AP-620's speakers is not nearly at the same level of realism as the EP3's which sound a lot like an acoustic grand. The decay in the AP-620 was in fact so short that I simply could not render many classical pieces correctly, with the 1st movement of the "Moonlight" sonata being yet another example.

Yes, you pay more for the cabinets in the Celviano models, however, I can assure you that the new AP-650's samples are still not long enough, as andy1040 and I have compared notes on our digitals. You do get a louder speaker system in the AP-650 (compared to the Privias) although it remains the same as the AP-620's speakers. The louder speakers (at 60 watts) do not help the piano to project its short samples which are not sufficient. Aside from the extremely short decay (and, thin harmonic resonance) the AP-650 does have a ton of sounds and features, none of which improves the piano samples.

I have previously owned the AP-620, PX-130, and, CDP-100. Please note that Casio states they have expanded the capacity of the AP-650's memory 3x (times). This new memory allocation has not appeared to help much with the decay or sustain time, as the OP (andy0140) has mentioned.

There is no question that the AP-650's decay and sustain may be a little (or, slightly) longer than the AP-620's, but the OP had to return his AP-650 due to the very short decay. I traded in my AP-620 for the same reasons.

The similarities should be clear (as for both digitals) that the overall sustain and decay is not quite sufficient in either model. I would not buy an AP-650, knowing this fact.

The other piano that I was seriously considering was a Kawai CN34. The deal breaker here was the lack of competitive bidding by Kawai dealers. (And this is forced from higher up in the company.) I was able to get quotes a little better than the “Buy Now” prices at http://www.kawaius.com/main_links/digital/CNxx4/cn34.html , but not anywhere near what a straight currency conversion plus VAT adjustment would give from a UK dealer.

The CN34 is a good machine, and I would rate it slightly better than a Celviano 650. If the price were only “slightly higher” than that for a Casio 650 (estimated at $1,500 +/-), I would have gone the CN34 route.

I have to use specs, reviews, and video clips for any evaluations that I make as the nearest major dealers for Casio and Kawai are 200 miles away - in different directions. There is a "Best Buy" that has recently shown up as a Casio dealer only 40 miles away, but they don't even advertise a Celviano 620 never mind a 650. Thus there isn't any practical way that I could compare playing them - especially as a side by side comparison.

From what I can see, you are the only one on this thread that has actually played a 650 (vs. a 620), so I do give your opinion more weight. However the clincher (at least for me) for the decay evaluation is PianoManChuck's comparison of a Privia 330 vs. a Privia 350. The Celviano 650 has the same sound engine as the Privia 350 which is different from the 330 (and the Celviano 620).

The Kawai CN34 seems to be a slightly better machine so if I could get it at nearly the same price as a 650, I would go for the CN34.

One other factor to consider is that the piano will go in a large room (25-foot ceiling - open to other rooms on both floors). The 650 has an edge here as it has more powerful speakers. You can add external speakers to either piano, but this would add to the price evaluation.